Hi all, this discussion sounds like the one on the "libregraphics dot org" one ;) I like the idea by the way.
In my memory, Jon Nordby had reserved a suitable similar domain last year for this. Maybe the Alexandre Prodoukine's http://libregraphicsworld.org/ or the a.l.e.'s http://www.freegraphicdesigner.org/<http://freegraphicsdesigner.org>are suitable if they agree. Why not start to use one of thoses now, with "resources dot oneofthosedomains dot org" ? http://create.freedesktop.org/resources/ is ok too if we have nothing else. Jon, Alexandre, a.l.e., what do you think ? Cheers, Camille 2011/6/19 Gregory Pittman <gpitt...@iglou.com> > On 06/19/2011 11:16 AM, Yuval Levy wrote: > >> On June 19, 2011 10:55:17 AM a.l.e wrote: >> >>> just one question: do the create folk really like that "stuff" thing for >>> resources? >>> >> I can't answer for others and there is no poll known to me to answer the >> question. I can answer for myself... >> >> i'm no english native speaker, so i'm not sure i'm the best person to >>> judge, but me don't like it. >>> >> ... and you can (and should!) too. Everybody's opinions are welcome. No >> need >> to be a native speaker. In fact the perspective of non-native speaker is >> more >> important simply because there are more non-native speakers than native >> speakers and this is not about getting things correct from a >> grammar/sytanx >> point of view, but form how it sounds and feels and types for everybody. >> >> I am no native speaker. >> >> My own personal opinion about the few words that have been floating the >> room >> for quite some time, in no particular order: >> * stuff: I dislike it. It's as generic as "thing" and won't yeild useful >> search engine results. >> * LGM: I dislike acronyms. They require insider knowledge and are thus >> difficult to memorize, and are ambigous to different sets of insiders and >> by >> extensions to search engines. No good to communicate to the outside >> world. >> * create: nice but too generic / ambiguous. while it expresses what we >> do, >> there is little chance that we can pump into it enough power to make it >> stand >> on its own. >> * freedesktop: wrong context >> * free / libre: relevant in a different context. too broad to define "us" >> (we >> are only a small part of the free / libre movement) and too narrow to >> define >> "us" as well (libre graphics is just a part of the graphics universe) >> * graphics / graphicsworld: is what come nearest to what I like, but still >> a >> little bit too generic (for search engines and for mnemonics). Plus, some >> of >> us create multimedia, which covers also the time dimension and a broader >> space >> that includes also the 20Hz-20KHz band and not only the "visible window" >> in >> the 400–790THz band. And creativity goes beyond audio and video - there >> is >> also text and surrogates like braille; and there is the physical >> creativity >> with clay and other materials, rapid prototyping (3D-printers) etc. >> >> So maybe a definition in terms of *purpose*. What are we creating for? >> Is it >> a form of communication? exchange? self-gratification? all or none of >> the >> above? >> >> Of course it is always easier to criticize than to propose alternatives, >> so >> please don't take the above as diminishing any of the terms mentioned. If >> I >> had thought a better term, I would have proposed it long ago. I can live >> with >> the status quo of a cacophony of terms and duplication of resources until >> a >> superior term emerges from it by its sheer intrinsic power. In many parts >> of >> the world a photo camera is called a "Kodak"; adhesive tape is called >> "Scotch"; and a refirgerator is called a "Frigidaire" - the intrinsic >> power of >> these terms have transcended their artificially created brands (when >> effort >> needs to be put into a term to etch it in the collective language) to >> establish themselves as common words (carried by their own intrinsic >> power). >> In more recent time, Google is one of those terms. One day we'll find our >> term and we'll know it just because it will become apparent. Until then, >> keep >> creating, keep trying, and just because you invented an incumbent term >> that is >> being "attacked" by a new term, don't be defensive about it. >> > I think you've touched on a number of legitimate complaints about these > various terms. As you say yourself, complaints are not solutions, so I think > in general until someone can come up with better alternatives his/her > complaints are not likely to get much traction. > > I used to have a similar reaction to 'create', but now I think it's pretty > good, and allows for shifting directions of interest, incorporation of new > things and ideas. I do agree about 'stuff' being troublesome, even before > considering the issues non-native English speakers face. > > We do have to be mindful of how much various search functions are used to > locate things, so it may be that somewhere attached to pages associated with > 'create' there needs to be some associated terms that help the site be found > when searching for create site content. So in general, when some generic > term like 'create', like 'stuff' gets used, how does it get embellished with > some additional terms to help focus those of us when we come looking for it? > > Greg > > ______________________________**_________________ > CREATE mailing list > CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/**mailman/listinfo/create<http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create> >
_______________________________________________ CREATE mailing list CREATE@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/create
